Kerala High Court
The Secretary, Thrikkakara ... vs Grace Cherian on 8 April, 2022
Author: N. Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022/18TH CHAITHRA, 1944
RP NO. 340 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.01.2022 IN
WP(C) 27833/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE WPC:
1 THE SECRETARY, THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY
THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI - 682 021.
2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,
THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI - 682 021.
BY ADV S.JAMAL
RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 GRACE CHERIAN, AGED 60 YEARS,
NEREVEETTIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA,
THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI - 682 021.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER,
TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD - 682 021.
SRI.APPU P.S., G.P.
R1-SMT.K.P.SANTHI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP No.340/2022
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
R.P. No.340 of 2022
in
W.P.(C) No.27833 of 2020
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2022
ORDER
~~~~~~ This Court, as per judgment dated 04.01.2022, disposed of W.P.(C) No.27833/2020 holding that the assessment of Additional Compound Fee (Parking) as contained in Ext.P6 is illegal. Consequently, Exts.P6 and P7 were set aside.
2. Respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition have filed this review petition alleging that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. According to them, in the judgment, this Court found that the petitioner's building coming under the occupancy-Group F-Mercantile Commercial Building exceeding 75 square metres of carpet area, but less than RP No.340/2022 :3: 1000 square metres carpet area. If that be so, the 12 parking space fixed for the petitioner's building is sufficient and it is according to the Rules, 1999. And then the calculation of Compound Fee (parking) by the Secretary would be correct.
3. This Court accidentally mistook the requirement of one parking space for every 75 square metres as though 75 square metres is the total parking space required for building having carpet area of less than 1000 square metres, to be the stipulation in the provision. This has resulted as a consequence of accidental slip in taking into account the provisions mentioned in the top of the Table 5.2.
4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
5. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition considered the required parking area under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules when Ext.P1 Building Permit was issued. In paragraph 16 of the judgment, this Court held as follows:
16. Table 5.2 under Rule 34 of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999 (KMBR, 1999) RP No.340/2022 :4: provides for the requirements of parking, loading and unloading spaces. Rule 34 as it stood amended as on 16.12.2009 provides that for Group F-Mercantile/Commercial building exceeding 75 Square metres, the Parking requirement is One parking space for every or fraction of 75 Square metres of carpet area for building having total carpet area up to 1000 Square metres and 50 Square metres of carpet area for the total carpet area in excess of 1000 Square metres. The total carpet area (inclusive of old building) of the petitioner, as per Ext.P2 Sanctioned Plan is 1046.10 Square metres. The petitioner has constructed in a lesser area and the total constructed area is less than 1000 Square metres. Therefore, the required parking area is 75 Square metres. The petitioner has provided 131.01 Square metres as parking place as per the Sanctioned Plan.
Considering the ambit of Rule 34 of the KMBR, this Court finds that there is no error in the judgment of this Court warranting interference.
The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/11.04.2022